Separation of the Male and his Penis

From UBC Wiki

Hegemonic Masculinity

Conceptualized by Australian sociologist R.W. Connell in 1987, hegemonic masculinity is a theory that argues for the dominating role of men in the gender hierarchy. Not to be confused with hyper masculinity, hegemonic masculinity details a set of behaviours such as physical strength, violence, and breadwinnership. These traits claim to offer legitimacy to the superiority of masculinity over women and any gender identity that is not perceived as masculine. Hegemonic masculinity has influence in all aspects of society including politics, religion, government, sexuality, entertainment and business.[1]

Depictions of the Penis

As separate from the man

The morphology of the penis with its visible exterior creates an inside/outside dichotomy with the invisible interiority of women’s reproductive organs.[2] The relationship between a man and his penis similarly follows this inside/outside dichotomy, however the penis is associated with both the external physical position while possessing an internal consciousness that is distinct from the male mind of the body to which it is attached.  The penis is frequently characterized as a miniature man that is comparable to a homunculus with a mind of its own.[3]

As a tool for power

The penis serves as a physical tool that can embody the abstract form of male power associated with the Phallus. According to David Buchbinder in Studying Men and Masculinities, the Phallus is a symbolic representation of male power:[4] “Imagined culturally as gigantic and as permanently erect, unlike the actual penis, the phallus is that to which all penises refer, and for which every fleshly penis is, in some sense, a metaphor and a sign. However, no physical penis, no matter how large, can ever rival the imagined grandeur and splendor of the phallus, which we may think of as engorged, not with blood (as a real, erect penis would be), but with power.”[5]

Medicalization of Erections

The introduction of pharmaceutical drugs like Viagra aimed at treating erectile dysfunction in men has medicalized the natural male erection. Its purpose of fixing a man’s erection pathologizes impotence, often a psychologically rooted affliction that can be overcome through therapy. The medicalization of natural erections emphasizes the treatment of the penis as a separate entity from the male body. This disassociation of the male from his penis may have positive benefits on reducing shame and facilitating openness in male patients when discussing penis-related problems with their health providers. The internal structure of the female reproductive organs does not offer women the same distancing from their sexual dysfunctions.[6]

Penis Blaming

When the penis is depicted as a man-like being that operates autonomously from the body, it can take the blame for unexplainable events such as involuntary erections, nocturnal emissions, and even socially unacceptable sexual behaviour.[7]The treatment of the penis as a separate entity from the male body introduces the notion of the penis as a penis-body. Heterosexual men may use this separation as a method of enjoying pornography and the depiction of other males’ genitalia without being labelled as homosexual.[8] The separation of the penis from the male body leads to the blaming of the penis rather than the self. [9] Sexual intercourse, especially deviant behaviour can be interpreted as a bodily experience where the rational brain is taken over by the irrational and uncontrollable mind of the penis-body.[10]

“Men, you know you have a tiny creature living between your legs that has no memory and no conscience. You know that. You know you have no control. There is no control over this tiny beast. You wake up in the morning, he’s been up Žve minutes before you, like ‘How you doing?’. No conscious control. He’s there … You have no control! It should be a separate creature.”[11] (an excerpt from Robin Williams Live on the topic of penises, 1986)

The penis takes on human-like characteristics that make it seem uncontrollable and disobedient to the body to which it is attached. The perception of the penis-body as unable to be restrained clashes with the hegemonic representation of masculinity that portrays the penis as a part of a man’s “man-hood”, not as a controller of the man. [12] With dominance and control being central traits to hegemonic masculinity, the notion of the man lacking authority over his penis is seen as a disruption to masculine control.[13]

The Penis-body and risky sexual behaviour

The personification of the penis-body can lead some men to dissociate from their sexual behaviour, specifically evading safe-sex practices when overtaken by their penis-body. The application of the condom involves a level of rationality that clashes with the lustful, animalistic drive of the penis-body. Given the separation of the male from the penis-body, the blame for risky sexual behavior can be placed on the penis-body and the male consciousness cleared.[14]


  1. ↑ Kareithi, Peter. "Hegemonic masculinity in media contents." UNESCO: 26-27. Accessed April 10, 2017. http://www.unesco.org/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/publications/gamag_research_agenda_kareithi.pdf.
  2. ↑ Annie Potts, "The Man with Two Brains: Hegemonic masculine subjectivity and the discursive construction of the unreasonable penis-self," Journal of Gender Studies 10, no. 2 (2001): , doi:10.1080/09589230120053274.
  3. ↑ Potts, A. ""The Essence of the Hard On": Hegemonic Masculinity and the Cultural Construction of "Erectile Dysfunction"." Men and Masculinities 3, no. 1 (2000): 85-103. doi:10.1177/1097184x00003001004.
  4. ↑ https://books.google.ca/books?id=55U2jf_UUHsC&pg=PT345&lpg=PT345&dq=David+Buchbinder+phallus&source=bl&ots=ds8absGmca&sig=iEeE24y3Kj4MlVD0KgbmB62eReQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZi8bU95_TAhVYwGMKHYeUC5MQ6AEIKTAB#v=onepage&q=gigantic&f=false
  5. ↑ https://books.google.ca/books?id=55U2jf_UUHsC&pg=PT345&lpg=PT345&dq=David+Buchbinder+phallus&source=bl&ots=ds8absGmca&sig=iEeE24y3Kj4MlVD0KgbmB62eReQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZi8bU95_TAhVYwGMKHYeUC5MQ6AEIKTAB#v=onepage&q=gigantic&f=false
  6. ↑ Flowers, Paul, Darren Langdridge, Brendan Gough, and Ruth Holliday. "On the Biomedicalisation of the Penis: The Commodification of Function and Aesthetics." International Journal of Men's Health 12, no. 2 (2013): 121-37. doi:10.3149/jmh.1202.121.
  7. ↑ Flowers, Paul, Darren Langdridge, Brendan Gough, and Ruth Holliday. "On the Biomedicalisation of the Penis: The Commodification of Function and Aesthetics." International Journal of Men's Health 12, no. 2 (2013): 121-37. doi:10.3149/jmh.1202.121.
  8. ↑ Sorensen, Niels. "Detours for heterosexuality—Young boys viewing male bodies in pornog- raphy." GEXcel, 2009. https://tidsskrift.dk/index.php/KKF/article/view/44300.
  9. ↑ Potts, Annie. "The Man with Two Brains: Hegemonic masculine subjectivity and the discursive construction of the unreasonable penis-self." Journal of Gender Studies 10, no. 2 (2001): 145-56. doi:10.1080/09589230120053274.
  10. ↑ SEIDLER, V. (1987) Reason, Desire, and Male Sexuality, in: P. CAPLAN (Ed.) The Cultural Construction of Sexuality (London, Tavistock).
  11. ↑ Potts, Annie. "The Man with Two Brains: Hegemonic masculine subjectivity and the discursive construction of the unreasonable penis-self." Journal of Gender Studies 10, no. 2 (2001): 145-56. doi:10.1080/09589230120053274.
  12. ↑ Flowers, Paul, Darren Langdridge, Brendan Gough, and Ruth Holliday. "On the Biomedicalisation of the Penis: The Commodification of Function and Aesthetics." International Journal of Men's Health 12, no. 2 (2013): 121-37. doi:10.3149/jmh.1202.121.
  13. ↑ FROSH, S. (1994) Sexual Difference: masculinity and psychoanalysis (London, Routledge).
  14. ↑ Potts, Annie. "The Man with Two Brains: Hegemonic masculine subjectivity and the discursive construction of the unreasonable penis-self." Journal of Gender Studies 10, no. 2 (2001): 145-56. doi:10.1080/09589230120053274.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Separation_of_the_Male_and_his_Penis&oldid=452598"